Petitioner approached High Court praying for directions to stop police harassment at the behest of private parties. Bench held that investigation is the police's domain and bald allegations do not suffice. Petition dismissed.
No direction issued; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3020-2023 Decided on : 21.02.2023
Baljit Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
The petitioner is seeking issuance of directions to respondents No.2 to 4 not to harass him and his family at the behest of respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the official respondents i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 have been continuously harassing the petitioner and his family at the behest of the private respondents, who are inimical to him. Learned counsel submits that there is every likelihood that on the basis of some false and fabricated complaint, the petitioner and his family could be implicated in false criminal cases. Learned counsel further submits that a representation dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) had also been given to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural)- respondent No.3 in the said regard but the same had been in vain.
Mr. Ramdeep Pratap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, on instructions has submitted that there is no substance in the allegations levelled by the petitioner that the private respondents with the
SONIA BURA 2023.02.27 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3020-2023
-2-
patronage of official respondents were subjecting him and his family to the alleged harassment. Learned State counsel has further submitted that an FIR was registered against the petitioner along with other accused on 17.11.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record.
Mere bald allegations that the official respondents in connivance with the private respondents had been unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and his family, cannot be a sufficient enough ground for issuance of directions as sought for. Investigation of a crime falls within the exclusive domain of the investigating agency. The police is well within their rights to join any such person who may be required by them during the investigation by following the procedure as established by law. As a sequel to the above, no ground is made out to entertain the present petition which accordingly stands dismissed.
As a sequel to above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and the present petition stands dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE
21.02.2023 sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA BURA 2023.02.27 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mere allegations of falsely induced police harassment justify a direction to official respondents to stop investigation
Whether this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to issue direction to officials
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baljit Singh
State of Punjab
Manjari Nehru Kaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
